Disposed¶26

Purushottam S/O Sahebrao Deshmukh v. the Sub Divisional Officer, Washim and Others

Bombay HC11 Aug 2025WP/4212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue penalty order quashed as unreasoned/non-speaking: failure to consider Lease Deed 25-11-2023 (vehicle leased to Balaji Borkar); no reasons stated for rejecting petitioner's submissions; penalty Rs.1,99,225/- for 6.13 brass sand transport; remand to Tahsildar, Washim with hearing and one-month timeline; merits left open; natural justice; Writ Petition No.4212/2025, Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench, decided 11-08-2025, Khubalkar J.; cites (2010) 4 SCC 785.

What did the court decide?

Without making any observations on the merits, impugned orders quashed and set aside; matter relegated to respondent no.3, Tahsildar, Washim, for reconsideration after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, with direction to take decision within one month; writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶26

Purushottam S/O Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs the Sub Divisional Officer, Washim and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities failed to give due consideration to the Lease Deed dated 25-11-2023 showing the vehicle in question was leased out to Mr. Balaji Borkar, such that action regarding use of the vehicle could not be attributed to the petitioner. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent authorities have not given due consideration to the document of Lease Deed by which the vehicle in question was leased to Mr. Borkar.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

In view of the petitioner's contention that the vehicle was not used by him at the relevant time, the issues arising from the Lease Deed ought to have been considered by the Authorities.

¶22-23

Key takeaways

The impugned order does not show consideration of the submissions of the petitioner, and neither the reasons for rejecting the submissions are stated; it is accordingly unreasoned and non-speaking.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Nagpur Bench) disposed of: the Tahsildar, Malegaon's order dated 15-05-2024 imposing penalty of Rs.1,99,225/- for alleged illegal transportation of 6.13 brass sand, along with the Sub-Divisional Officer's order, were quashed and set aside without any observations on merits. The Court found the authorities had not given due consideration to the Lease Deed dated 25-11-2023 showing the vehicle was leased to Mr. Balaji Borkar, and that the impugned order showed no consideration of the petitioner's submissions and stated no reasons for rejecting them, rendering it unreasoned and non-speaking. The matter was relegated to respondent no.3, Tahsildar, Washim, for fresh reconsideration after hearing the parties, with a direction to decide within one month. Petitioner's counsel had relied on Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs Shukla and brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No.4212/2025 Purushottam V Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim and others

¶4

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - ---------------------------- Mr. R. Dhore, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Autkar, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶7

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

¶8

 DATE: 11-08-2025.

¶9

Heard Mr. Dhore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

2.Petitioner has challenged order dated 15-05-2024

¶11

passed by the Tahsildar, Malegaon, by which penalty of
Rs.1,99,225/- is imposed upon the petitioner on account of alleged
illegal transportation of 6.13 brass sand.

¶12

3.Issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGP waives
service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

4.Amongst other contentions learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that, the impugned order is passed without
considering the crucial aspects about the document of Lease Deed
25-11-2023 which shows the vehicle in question was leased out to
one Mr. Balaji Borkar and therefore any kind of action with respect
to use of vehicle cannot be attributed to the petitioner. He submits
that this crucial aspect although was pointed out to the Authorities,
however, the same is not considered and as such the impugned order

¶14

is unreasoned, non speaking and thus violative of principles of

¶15

2 wp 4212.25.odt

¶16

natural justice. He therefore, prays for remand of the matter to
Tahsildar. He also submits that even the Sub-Divisional Officer
although referred to the document of Lease Deed, however, there is
no due consideration about the effect of the Lease Deed since the
vehicle was not being used by the petitioner. He, therefore, submits
that both the orders are violative of principles of natural justice.

¶17

5.In support of his submissions that the impugned order is
unsustainable being unreasoned and non speaking, learned Counsel
for the petitioner relies on judgment in the matter of Assistant

¶18

Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and
Leasing, Kota vs Shukla and brothers, reported in (2010) 4 SCC

¶19

785.

¶20

6.Learned AGP submits that there is reference to the

¶21

Lease Deed and the contention that the aspect is not considered is
baseless since the vehicle stands in the name of petitioner. He,
therefore, supports the impugned orders.

¶22

7.Perusal of impugned order shows that the respondent
authorities have not given due consideration to the document of
Lease Deed by which the vehicle in question was leased to
Mr. Borkar. In view of the contentions canvassed by the petitioner
that the vehicle was not used by the petitioner at the relevant time,

¶23

the issues ought to have been considered by the Authorities. The
impugned order does not show consideration of the submissions of

¶24

3 wp 4212.25.odt

¶25

the petitioner, neither the reasons for rejecting the submissions are
stated.

¶26

8.In view of this, without making any observations on
merits of the matter, impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

¶27

9.The matter is relegated to respondent no.3 Tahsildar,
Washim for reconsideration of the matter after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶28

10.Respondent no.3 is directed to take decision within one

¶29

month.

¶30

11.Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶31

( Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. )

¶32

Deshmukh

Purushottam S/O Sahebrao Deshmukh v. the Sub Divisional Officer, Washim and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam S/O Sahebrao Deshmukh v. the Sub Divisional Officer, Washim and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Santosh Rathod vs Honble Minister, Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Prakash Rajeshwarrao Bejankiwar and Others vs Ramu Paikuji Yedme and Others

Vijay S/O. Shankarrao Talewar vs Prafull S/O. Sadashiv Buty (Huf) Thr. Karta, Shrikrishna P. Buty

Sushant Sunilchandra Das vs Saraswati Sushant Das

Jagannath S/O Prakash Kulal and Another vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Gopal Baliram Gulhane and Others vs Sadruddin Jivanbhai Dobria, (Dead), Thr. Lrs., Fatimabai Wd/O Sadruddin Dobria and Others